Can Open-Access legitimise pre-print publication servers?
“Plan S requires that, from 2021, scientific publications that result from research funded by public grants must be published in compliant Open Access journals or platforms.”
Plan S aims to revolutionise access to scientific research, but is this really such a new concept?
In certain scientific fields, pre-print servers have long been publishing articles to and for researchers for free.
The pioneer in this sector is arXiv, which started as a pre-world-wide-web bulletin board by Paul Ginspurg in 1991. Run by Cornell University Library, it is completely independent from publishers, and is fully funded by libraries. It hosts over a million articles in:
- Physics;
- Mathematics;
- Computer Science;
- Electronic engineering;
- Statistics;
- System science;
- Economics;
- Quantitative biology and finance.
Benefits
Publishing research on arXiv has multiple benefits: rapid dissemination of ideas, presenting articles for review, and it is significantly faster than traditional publishing. In astrophysics for example, it is common for researchers to systematically submit and read papers on arXiv over academic journals.
Issues
But what is the catch? ArXiv does not have a peer-review system, preventing it from being recognised by the academic community. Following submission, articles are screened by an AI for fake papers, and are quickly moderated for their relevance to the field of research.
Because of the nature of the platform — seeking advice and review from peers — there is no academically rigorous reviewing of submissions. The platform does not even allow comments on the papers, with social media sites, such as SciRate and arXiv Sanity Preserver, having been created as forums for discussion.
There is also concern about pre-publication affecting citation dynamics (Ferrer-Sapera et al). Leaving researchers in certain fields and countries hesitant to use arXiv because of fears that institutions, funders and governments only count citations and works published in traditional journals.
The future of arXiv
The two main issues have proposed solutions:
→ Wang and Zhan have proposed a conceptual self-organizing peer review system that would enable anonymous and rigorous peer-review that would legitimize arXiv and other pre-publication archives (Wang and Zhan 2019).
→ Ferrer-Sapera et al. (2018) have called for “a standard citation method and regulated bibliometric rules must be imposed for evaluation of research”.
However, both of these solutions would still need approval from the scientific community.
Where does this leave traditional publishers?
Pre-print servers have proven themselves a threat to traditional publishers. Often papers are submitted to arXiv before they have been accepted to journals, and then in accordance with the rules, are updated following publication.
As many as 75% of published papers on physics of condensed matter are available on arXiv (Ferrer-Sapera et al. 2018).
Some publishers are more open to this than others: certain explicitly forbidding this practice and others, like Springer, allowing it but only 12 months post-publication. In 2016, Elsevier purchased the Social Science Research Network, a popular pre-print repository of research in economics, law, and social sciences. This enabled them to modernise their business whilst moderating this resource.
Open-Access platforms and pre-publication servers that are unregulated by publishers leave them at risk of becoming redundant in the process of scholarly publishing. And it would prove much cheaper for all involved parties.
ArXiv was never meant to replace traditional publishing, but has turned into an essential tool for scientific researchers, despite the lack of official peer-review. Pre-print repositories prove that Open-Access can work and is necessary for scientific advancements, however it takes the power out of the hands of the publisher.
Boldt, Axel (2011). “Extending ArXiv.org to achieve open peer review & Publishing,” Journal of Scholarly Publishing, Jan 2011, pp238–242.
Ferrer-Sapera, Antonia and Aleixandre-Benavent, Rafael and Peset, Fernanda (2018). “Citations to arXiv Preprints by Indexed Journals and Their Impact on Research Evaluation,” Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice, vol 6(4), pp6–16.
Gibney, Elizabeth. “Open Journals that piggyback on arXiv gather momentum,” Nature | Toolbox, 4 January 2016.
Ginspurg, Paul (2014). “ArXiv screens spot fake papers,” Nature vol.508, 3 April 2014, p44.
Ginspurg, Paul (2011). “ArXiv at 20,” Nature vol.476, 11 August 2011, pp145–7.
Merali, Zeeya. “ArXiv rejections lead to spat over screening process,” Nature | News, 29 January 2016.
Van Noorden, Richard. “Social-sciences preprint server snapped up by publishing giant Elsevier,” Nature | News, 17 May 2016.
Van Noorden, Richard. “ArXiv preprint server plans multimillion-dollar overhaul,” Nature | News, 29 June 2016.
Wang, LingFeng and Zhan YaQing (2009). “A conceptual peer review model for arXiv & other preprint databases,” The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers.
